on the greeting practices of odious creators, and their inability to justify lazyness.

clearly, something is different. is it the font? the logo maybe? where is the comic?

yes. partially. here.

as anyone who has been stopping by of late knows, there haven’t been new comics for a long time now, and there wasn’t really going to be in the near future, so, rather than having my legacy die out slowly, like some ridiculously talented creators i can think of, i have decided to switch format to accomidate something i’ve been doing anyway.

yes, it’s a blog. yes, blogs have an innocous tendency to be self-flattering and all-around sucky. hopefully i can walk the walk and maintain something worth reading, if not i welcome you to check out the amazing things that some other folks are doing.

anyone actually interested in the photography which had become the main feature of v1.0 will find the pictures both posted here regularly, and archived individually (without the incessant talking) in the photography section.

i still love you.

you will like this new thing

universal church of the interactive network

banner for the universal church of the interactive network

“Our future, which art within us,
Hallowed is our aim
Thy gateway come
Thy downloads done
As Earth be worthy of heavens.
Give us this day our daily bandwidth.
And protect our addresses,
as we forgive those
who spam against us,
Lead us not into frustration,
but deliver us from Microsoft:
For thine is the client,
The server and the protocol
forever and ever.
-dialy prayer

On the manipulation of the Male mindset by archaic notions of gentility.

Please note that this post is from 2004. It is ancient history, preserved for accountability and transparency. Views expressed in this post do no represent my current attitudes.
– Jer, 2018

Why is it that I always end up in arguments? And why do people invariably perceive me as this raging monster of an argument inciter?

Case Study: Toilet Seat.

1. General Public
The commonly held view on the subject of “toilet seats” is that they should be down. Not necessarily always down, but that if there is to be a default, down should be it. The reasons cited for this (certain, mal-adjusted cat dwellings aside) always center around the status of women as toilet users, and the necessity of it being down for their use of it. It is thought that because women “have” to have it down, it is the responsibility of all individuals to maintain it in such a state so long as there are likely to be females present.

Obviously this is not the standard in, for example, a frat house, where women, in the vast minority, are left to fend for themselves, but seems to be the standard up to and including 2/1 man to woman ratios. Also in favor of this opinion, which seems to be held by everyone, everywhere in Canada at least, is the “falling in” theory, which speculates that a relevant number of females accidentally “fall in” to toilet bowls inadequately covered by seats.

2. Me
Now, it seems to me that this entire system is not only at it’s heart sexist, but also poses an unnacceptable nuissance to males everywhere. It is a relic of the patriarchal era of “chivalry” in which “gentlemen” acted in a certain fashion in the presence and in relation to “the fairer sex”. Now this heady discussion of gender politics may seem over the top, and irrelevant to the topic at hand, but nothing could be further from the truth.

What reason do men have to consider the toilet-seat needs of women over their own beyond sexist notions of work and politeness? The fact of the matter is that each and every human (western-toilet using human that is) is obligated to perform one movement each time they use the toilet after someone of the opposite sex. Every man, before urinating, and if a woman has last used the toilet, has to lift the seat. Likewise (and 100% fairly) every woman, when using a bathroom in which a man has recently urinated, must lower the seat. It is an entirely fair and 1/1 trade off.

Why should the entire task of touching the seat be delegated to men? So that the women can keep their delicate hands clean? Because men are stronger, and have less trouble with the weight? If these answers seem absurd and antagonizing to you, then just ask yourself what reasons you have for believing that I am wrong (and you probably do, fucker). Our cultural policy of toilet seat duty delegation may seem unimportant and trivial, but it is in fact signatory of an entire undercurrent of sexism that still very much exists in our society, and which is completely unfair, if only because men, who were more than willing to perform in the past, when the woman would ultimately become his slave, are now being unfairly treated, and are expected to go far beyond the call of duty.

Also, everybody poops, and when we do the seat goes down, and men certainly aren’t seeing the seatist benefits of this universal activity.

Do I really pick fights for no reason? Are the subjects I choose to defend stupid and pointless? No. They are absurd and unusual, but they must be relevant. They must be.

the thing about fear

“what are you most afraid of?”

…if he did have one fear, it would probably be of being wrong, or maybe of not being at all (as wrongness is both relative and a necessary step towards true correctness). He is afraid that he is not, or will not, consider the world around thim adequately. That he is/will not effetively understand why things are or should be. He’s mostly afraid that the thoughts that come out of his head don’t so much flow (let alone torrent) as much as trickle, and that out of the resulting pile of mental excrement very little of value for him, or for anyone else, will result.

It seems likely that he’s afraid of being stupid.

When he was in grade four (9 years old, the age when one first starts becomming aware of their own thoughts) he questioned whether those around him were sincerely themselves, or just actors. He asked this not because he thought that the was in a television show, or that he was being maliciously manipulated, but because he suspected that those around him were too much smarter than him to be in the same class.

He thought that he was in some way mentally handicapped, and that he was being deceived into believing that he possessed normal intelligence so that his feelngs would be spared.

One could argue that such thought in fact display precociousness on the part of a child. But that would not comfort young Jeremy, and the anxiety associated with this consideration would seem to be the most common example of fear found throughout his life. It would also seem relevant to note that on the few occasions during which Jeremy considered the possiblity of not being, it was his academic life, rather than personal, that instigated the loathesome doubt.

He is also extremely scared of large insects, to which he attributes more intelligence and danger than they could possibly deserve.

big fish

it’s weird that i can sit in front of a screen for two hours, scrutinizing and judging a film, trying to extricate ideology, meaning and flaws, and constantly noticing technical errors, and yet still end up crying at the end.

either i’m a sucker, or big fish is an amazing film.

it’s the kind of post-modernism that’s actually good for us, replacing all the irony driven sarcasm and self-referential exploitation and violence with a magical kind of meta-sincerity, leaving you feeling confused and wonderful. it gives us permission to LISTEN to the kind of stories we want to hear, without demanding that we consider them too closely, that we accept them for “what they are” or that we even think about them at all.

it’s the kind of story that makes me want to get off my ass and do something to re-create my own narrative, to re-discover my voice, and to say all the new and old things i’ve been meaning to say. it seems like the kind of movie that can really inspire people, can bring something new to the table.

or maybe i just cry a lot. the jury’s still out.